SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD

SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD

The court found on the evidence that the 1st Plaintiff was not a party to the 5th and 6th contracts and therefore lacked standing to sue for breach of those contracts; the plaintiffs failed to prove the goods were defective because the expert tests used unrealistic conditions (90°C water) and thus had no probative...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD
Parties
First Plaintiff: Southwest Product Development Limited; Second Plaintiff: Evangel Metal & Plastic Mfy. Co. Ltd; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2006
Case Number
DCCJ4708/2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment entered for Defendant on counterclaim against the 2nd Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Counterclaim, Privity of Contract, Agency, Damages, Payment, Delivery, Defective Goods, Expert Evidence
Source Language
en
Contract Commercial Civil Procedure Evidence Breach of Contract Counterclaim Privity of Contract Agency +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southwest Product Development Limited

First Plaintiff

Evangel Metal & Plastic Mfy. Co. Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Plaintiff was a party to the 5th and 6th contracts
  2. 2 Whether the goods delivered under the 5th and 6th contracts were defective
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs suffered recoverable loss and damage

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the 1st Plaintiff was not a party to the 5th and 6th contracts and therefore lacked standing to sue for breach of those contracts; the plaintiffs failed to prove the goods were defective because the expert tests used unrealistic conditions (90°C water) and thus had no probative value; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim against the 2nd Plaintiff for unpaid invoices (HK$42,778.20) succeeded.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment entered for Defendant on counterclaim against the 2nd Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant against the 2nd Plaintiff in the amount of HK$42,778.20 with interest at judgment rate from 5 September 2003 until satisfaction
  • Costs: order nisi that the Plaintiffs pay costs to the Defendant, to be made absolute in 14 days if not objected, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for Counsel